The etymology of adjective literally means “throw to”. An adjective in its original meaning is any word that “throws” additional meaning to another word that needs clarification, wether it be a verb, noun, pronoun, or other adjective. To distinguish adverbs from adjectives is completely unnecessary. So is modifying “unnecessary” with “completely”. It adds no additional value, like most adverbs.

English is one of the most redundant languages in the world, where anyone can say something wordy and sound like they are saying something meaningful, even if it’s meaningless chatter. Adverbs are a pretentious addition, like definite and indefinite articles. There are other ways to say the same things, that are as clear or clearer than using adverbs and articles.

Only your education in a pretentious grammatical system causes your reaction of distaste and horror. You assume necessity concerning things to which you are accustomed, as do we all.

One of the most ridiculous things I hear in English is “hilariously funny”. Hilarious already means “very funny”; people could say “hilarious” alone, and no one would miss a beat.

As for your assertions concerning “think different” and “eat fresh”, if you knew anything about English grammar, you’d know that “different” and “fresh” are being used as nominal adjectives, as in statements like, “out with the old, in with the new”, which is correct grammar. Just like “eat fresh” and “think different”. A nominal adjective is an adjective used like a noun. The adjective is being used as a tenuous noun, to allow for a range of subjective interpretations.

Rules of grammar differ from language to language. Slavic languages rarely use definite or indefinite articles, and German rarely uses adjective/adverb distinctions. Things like euphony and structural limitation determine grammar, not some set of arbitrary standards.

For example, I’m creating a conlang that makes no use of indefinite or definite articles, and that doesn’t have a class of adverbs separate from adjectives. I was using -a as an adjectival suffix and -e as an adverbial suffix, but realized that like the -e in German words, speakers would inevitably pronounce the -e as an A. I also realized that it sounds better and there is no problem understanding sentences without adverbial distinctions. If everyone pronounced -e like -a, there would be no structural difference between adjectives and adverbs anyways, so to create an adverb class for my language would be pointless. It would be a theoretical grammatical class only apparent on paper.

We don’t need an adverb class in English grammar. Good riddance. If English is to be a truly global language, it needs to omit lavish redundancies, which is what is REALLY happening when you hear “flat adverbs”.

No.

And I’m sure you use flat adverbs on a daily basis and don’t even know it.

So . . . no.

Let’s leave it as it is, please.

@Carol: you have my sympathy. I am writing for international, British, Irish and US markets, and the language situation (and diversion) gets increasingly confusing.

Live Adventurous.

“Dids’t thou thinketh?””

That would be “Didst thou think?” or “Thinkest thou?”

“Thinketh” is third person singular.

The other reason this is important is for variety. If you use simple verbs with adverbs, your writing will become repetitious. If all your characters do is “run” modified by “quickly”, “slowly”, “haphazardly”, etc., they are still “running” each time. On the other hand, if they “sprint”, “mosey”, and “meander” you’ve got the exact same concepts conveyed with new words each time, and therefore your story gets more mileage before it becomes stale.

“Eat fresh” doesn’t employ an adverb, or a “flat adverb”, however. The phrase is entirely grammatically correct. It’s an elision. It means “Eat fresh (things)”, with the word things being elided. That’s okay grammatically.

“Think different”, however, is a valid of example of your complaint. And it’s a funny one, given how snobbish Apple’s cultivated image is.